LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



DD0E3H774^A 



pHS3 



r 




E 396 
.ftA9 
Copy ^ 



VIRGINIA AND THE PRESIDENTIAL SUCCES- 
SION, 1 840-1 844 

For the spirit with which it was conducted, the surprises 
which it developed, and the importance of its results, the 
Campaign in Virginia to name John Tyler's successor to 
the presidency has scarcely a parallel. It lasted four years 
and was, during the greater part of the time, a four- 
cornered contest waged by the respective friends of Henry 
Clay, John Tyler, Martin Van Buren, and John C. Cal- 
houn. It resulted in the repudiation of two native sons, 
Tyler and Clay, in a temporary breach in the political al- 
liance between Virginia and New York, in making conti- 

'.^nental expansion a great national issue, and last but not 
f east, it was largely instrumental in effectively blighting the 

J long-cherished presidential hopes of John C. Calhoun. 

j Before the results of the election of 1840 were fully 

<j ,\.nown, except to warrant the claims of an overwhelming 
victory for the Whigs, Thomas Ritchie ^ of the Richmond 

^ Thomas Ritchie was born at Tappahannock, Essex County, Virginia, 
November 5, 1778, and died July 12, 1854. He was the son of Archibald 
Ritchie, a Scotch merchant. By application of his fine natural abilities 
young Ritchie acquired a good education. His tastes ran to literature 
and to subjects pertaining to politics and economics. In 1804 he became 
editor of the Richmond Enquirer, formerly the Examiner, in which posi- 
tion he remained until 1845, when he went to Washington to become 
editor of the Union, the mouthpiece of Polk's administration. After 
Polk retired from the presidency Ritchie continued to edit the Union until 
1852, when he was practically forced to retire to restore accord in the 
Democratic party. In Virginia Ritchie was known as the " Napoleon 
of the press," and he there exercised a power in politics surpassed only 
by that of such leaders as JeflEerson and Madison. After 1830 he had 
scarcely a peer among the Democratic leaders of his native state. Al- 
though a state-rights politician of the most uncompromising character, 

165 



1 'A;^ 

1 66 C: H: Ambler 

Enquirer set himself to the task of allaying sectional and 
personal jealousies, in order to make possible subsequent 
victory for the Democrats in the state and in the nation. 
To these ends he desired a return to fundamental prin- 
ciples.^ Despite the fact that the Whigs of Vir- 
ginia had urged the election of General Harrison 
on the ground that he was a true Whig, intent 
only upon a desire to check executive usurpations and 
abuses,^ Ritchie looked upon their success as a triumph for 
old-time Federalism.* He and his political friends felt 
that Henry Clay, the real leader of the Whig party, in- 
terpreted the victory of 1840 as a repudiation of Jackson 
and of Van Buren and as a popular demand for the re- 
charter of a United States bank and the enactment of a 
protective tariff law.^ They insisted that, as an opposi- 
tion, the Whig party had ceased to exist and that It had, 
by a return to the principles and leaders of 1832, become -r 
the Federalist party of the elder and younger Adams.** Ac-( 
cordlngly the Richmond Enquirer raised the " beacon flag, 
of Virginia," the resolutions of 1798, and invited the statesi' 

t 

he was rarely found on the side of John C. Calhoun. He was devoted 
to the Union of the fathers, which he maintained could be preserved 
only by adhering to the letter of the federal constitution. As a last 
resort he believed that a state had the right to secede, but he thought that 
such a course would never be necessary. One of his favorite expressions 
was, " I shall never despair of the republic." His devotion to the Union, 
opposition to negro slavery, liberal attitude on constitutional reforms, 
internal improvements, and education, and his consequent popularity in 
the western counties made him a political power in his own day and did 
much to keep western Virginia loyal to the Union in 1861. 

'Richmond Enquirer, November 10, 13, 20, 1840. 

* Ibid., December i, 1843. This number of the Enquirer contains an 
excellent article by Thomas W. Gilmer, a former Whig, on the origin and 
history of the Whig party. 

" Ibid., January 7, 1841. 

° Thomas Ritchie to Martin Van Buren, May 19, 1841. Fan Buren 
MSS., in the Library of Congress. 

'Richmond Enquirer, December i, 1843. i-^ 



Tf'i 



Virginia and Presia^ential Succession 167 

to rally in an effort to save the constitution and to return to 

, the party of Jefferson and of Jackson/ 

' To relieve her favorite son of the odium cast upon him 
by nullification and to place his candidacy for the presi- 
dency In a more favorable light In the other states 
of the Union, South Carolina, at the same time, 
practically repudiated her doctrines of 1832 and pro- 
claimed the resolutions of 1798 to be the true prln- 
clpies of the Democratic party.* This feigned surrender 
was joyfully received in Virginia, where It was looked upon 
as the peaceful preliminary to a bitter contest between the 
friends of Calhoun and of Van Buren for the presidential 
nomination. But it was too soon to begin the fray, and 
Ritchie, who had done more than any other one person 
except Andrew Jackson to thwart the ambitions of Cal- 
iioun, now proclaimed that " the Democrats of Virginia 
will stand by the side of South Carolina and Alabama ° 
and maintain the institutions of the South and the great 
principles of '98-'99." " 

The first phase of the contest over the succession was 
fought out within the Whig party. As soon as Tyler had 
taken the oath of office, the state-rights Whigs of the 
•' Virginia lowlands " led by Henry A. Wise, Abel P. 
Upshur, L. W. Tazewell, and Judge N. Beverly Tucker ^^ 
began to lay plans to thwart the ambitions of Clay, to re- 
store the fallen prestige of Virginia, and to make It pos- 
sible for Tyler to be his own successor. Tyler's consclen- 

'' Ibid., November 13, 1840. 

' Ibid., January 7, 1841. 

• These states had given their electoral vote to Van Buren. 

^'Richmond Enquirer, January 2, 1841. 

^* A writer from Accomac County, the home of Mr. Wise, said that 
Tyler wrote to Wise " to come immediately." He added, " Webster will 
have a tough colt to manage, and Wise will defeat him in his federal 
plans." Ibid., May 14, 1841. T. W. Gilmer and W. C. Rives of the Pied- 
mont section were also friendly to Tyler. 



\ 



i68 C' H. Ambler 

tious desire to interpret the constitution strictly, his sensi- 
tive vanity, and his inordinate jealousy of Clay made it 
possible for this " corporal's guard " ^^ to lead him whith- 
ersoever it would. It is difficult to determine the extent of 
the influence exercised by Calhoun upon these leaders and 
their plans." With Tyler they were his ardent ad- 
mirers. They had followed him into the Whig party in 
1834, but had not yet, like their hero, retraced their 
steps, when the untimely death of General Harrison 
threw the executive branch of the government into their 
hands. 

It is evident In any case, that a breach between the 
state-rights Whigs and the national Whigs of Virginia was 
inevitable. In the presidential election of 1840, Hunter 
had refused to attend the polls.^* Later Wise strenuously 
objected to the proposed extra session of Congress decided 
upon by Harrison. ^^ In the congressional elections, which 
came immediately after Tyler's elevation to the presidency, 
Wise, of the Accomac district, and Francis Mallory, of the 
Norfolk district, were re-elected as state-rights Whigs ; ^® 
Thomas W. Gilmer resigned the office of governor and, as 
a state-rights Whig, successfully contested the re-election 
of the regular Whig nominee in the Albemarle district, 
James Garland; ^^ and Hunter secured a re-election as an 
'* Independent." ^^ Of these developments and the pros- 
pects for the future Thomas Ritchie wrote to Martin Van 
Buren as follows : " The Whig dynasty must soon tumble 

'"This was a name applied by Clay to Tyler's advisers. 

*' Both Wise and Upshur were devoted to Calhoun. "Calhoun Corre- 
spondence," Am. Hist. Assn. Rept. (1899), II., pp. 549, 555. 

^* Richmond Enquirer, February 13, 1841. 

'^'^ Ibid., February i, 6, 1841; Tyler, Letters and Times of the Tylers.. 
II., p. 7. 

^"^ Richmond Enquirer, April 20, 1841. 

" Ibid., April 30, 1844. 

" Ibid. 



Virginia and Presidential Succession 169 

to pieces: Hunter, Gilmer, and Mallory will not vote for 
a bank." " 

The extra session of Congress, which met in May, 1841, 
witnessed a battle royal between Clay and Tyler to drive 
each other from the coveted leadership of the Whig party. 
With an incredible presumption Tyler and his friends 
sought to crush Clay, as Jackson had done. If unsuccess- 
ful in this attempt, they hoped, at least, to divide the party 
and to place Tyler in a position of influence as the leader of 
the state-rights faction.^*' Clay Ignored them completely 
and used the Whig majorities In Congress to pass bank 
bills, which. It was known, Tyler would veto. Alleged 
compromise measures were met by other vetoes, and the 
session adjourned, leaving Tyler in the hands of un- 
scrupulous advisers — without a party among the masses 
and without a cabinet. ^^ 

Before the session adjourned the national Whigs of Vir- 
ginia had proclaimed the " Boy Orator of Slashes," Henry 
Clay, to be their unalterable choice for the presldency.^^ 
With this declaration they ceased, until Texas became an 
issue, to be a mere opposition party, and became a party of 
principles, favoring a recharter of a United States bank, 
an increase in the customs duties, and the distribution of 
the proceeds from the sales of the public lands." The old 
state-rights leaders were cast off, and John Minor Botts, 
Wm. L. Goggin, Alex. H. H. Stuart, and Geo. W. Sum- 
mers, representatives in Congress, and John Hampden 

^'Thomas Ritchie to Martin Van Buren, March 19, 1841. Van Buren 
MSS. This was twelve days before the special session of Congress of 
1841. 

"Tyler, Letters and Times of the Tylers, II., pp. 37, 46, 707; Rich- 
mond Enquirer, May 14, 1841 ; Ibid., July 13, 1841, contains a letter from 
Beverly Tucker; Schouler, History of the United States, IV., p. 395. 

^* Richmond Whig, November 9, 1841 ; Richmond Enquirer, November 
12, 1841. 

^^ Richmond Enquirer, August 10, 1841. 

^* Ibid., February 23, 1843, December i, 1843. 



1 70 C. El. Ambler 

Pleasants, editor of the Richmond Whig, now became the 
leaders of the party. Following the cue of the un- 
scrupulous Botts,^* the Whig now read Tyler out of the 
party, characterizing him as a '* fifteen shilling lawyer " 
and a " Tittlebat Titmouse " in the seat of " the refined 
Aubreys." " Indignation meetings were held in all parts 
of the state, and Tyler was generally condemned as a 
*' political traitor." ^® So popular did Henry Clay be- 
come with the masses, that the Whig legislature of 
i84i-'42 thought it politic to give a newly formed county 
his surname.^^ 

Webster's refusal to leave the cabinet, when the other 
members resigned, gave credence to the rumor that he and 
Tyler had, like James Monroe and John Q. Adams, united 
their fortunes with a view to the presidential succession.-^ 
The administration was still young, and it was thought that 
Tyler could, with the aid of his friends in Virginia, rally a 
southern party which could be united with Webster's fol- 
lowing in the north in such a way as to determine the suc- 
cession for at least eight years. Francis P. Blair, editor 
of the Washington Globe, considered Tyler " quite as well 
qualified " as Monroe to carry out such an agreement, but 
he added: "The times are changed. Old Adams still 
lives, a comment on the honesty of the first coalition, and 
Webster has enough of the odor of nationality to give the 



'* While the compromise bank bill was pending an ill-advised letter 
written by J. M. Botts came to light. Ntles Register, LXL, p. 35. 

^'^ Richmond Whig, November 9, 1841; Richmond Enquirer, November 
12, 1841. About this time J. H. Pleasants became an associate editor of 
the Independent, the spokesman of Clay in Washington. Richmond En- 
quirer, November 12, 1841. Later Joseph Segar, also a Virginian, became 
an associate editor on the staff of the same paper. Ibid,, March 3, 1842. 

*" Ibid., September 24, 1841. 

*' Ibid., January 8, 1842. 

-° Francis P. Blair to Martin Van Buren, September 27, 1841. Van 
Buren MSS. 



Virginia and Presidential Succession 171 

scent to the present administration through all its depart- 
ments." -^ Whatever may have been the attitude of Tyler 
toward his secretary of state, it is certain that Wise and 
Upshur were determined to drive him from the cabinet, 
and to tolerate no alliance with Federahsm."*' 

On the other hand, Tyler and his friends sought a pop- 
ular following in the Democratic party. They had suc- 
cessfully combated all efforts to recharter a United States 
bank and to promote the ambitions of its patron. Clay. 
It therefore seemed reasonable to them that the Demo- 
crats of Virginia might look upon Tyler as playing the part 
of Jackson. ^^ Besides, they had other reasons to hope 
for a popular following among the Democrats in Virginia. 
In an effort to regain that following and influence in his 
party, which his opposition to the Independent Treasury 
scheme had caused him to lose temporarily, Richie in his 
paper, the Richmond Enquirer, had coquetted with the ad- 
ministration powers by playing upon their " vanity " and 
by praising their " sagacity." ''^ He even sent one of his 
" strictly confidential " letters to one of the leaders in which 
he praised Mr. Tyler's bold and patriotic stand against the 
bank and assured him that the " Republicans ^^ of the un- 
terrified Commonwealth " were with him.^* So noticeable 
did the favor in which Ritchie held Tyler become, that 
the Richmond Whig denominated the Richmond Enquirer 
" the organ for the Whig president in the Commonwealth 
of Virginia." ^^ Thus it was that the Madisonian, Tyler's 

" Ibid. 

*" Tyler, Letters and Times of the Tylers, II., pp. 85, 120, 704. Rich- 
mond Enquirer, May c8, 1841 ; Ibid., May 26, 1843. 

*' Richmond Enquirer, October 22, 1841. 

*^ Richmond Enquirer, September 14, 1841; Ibid., February 10, 1842. 

"Locally the name "Republican" was applied to the party of Jackson 
and of Van Buren. 

'* Letter of Thomas Ritchie, owned by the author of this paper, date 
August 30, 1841. 

*^ Richmond IVhig, February 22, 1842. 



^ 



fi72 C. H. Ambler 

organ at Washington, disavowed at this time any inten- 
tion to establish a third party."*^ Wise, Mallory, and Gil- 
mer, former Whigs, each sought re-election upon the 
Democratic ticket; " and Tyler sent M. M. Noah, of the 
Philadelphia Weekly Messenger, to Richmond to ascer- 
tain the strength of the administration in Virginia, and to 
arrange, if possible, an understanding whereby the En- 
quirer would sustain his candidacy for the presidency.^® 

But the Richmond politicians desired only the votes and 
influence of the administration party, and to this end 
sought to drive them farther and farther from the Whigs. 
Mr. Ritchie gave no promises to Mr. Noah, but assured 
him that it would be his duty as well as his pleasure to 
support Mr. Tyler for an election, should he get the nom- 
ination of the Democratic party.^^ At the same time he 
continued his efforts to drive Webster from the cabinet; ^"^ 
he warned the administration of the difficulties, if not im- 
possibilities, in the way of forming a third party; *^ he held 
out dreams of immortality to Tyler in case he adhered to 
the principles of '98 *^ — yet he consistently refused to com- 
mit himself regarding the presidency.*^ An overwhelming 
victory in the local elections of 1842, due to gains made 
largely in the eastern counties,** attested the wisdom of 

"• Richmond Enquirer, February 26, 1842. 

■' Richmond Enquirer, September 3, 28, 1841 ; Ibid., October 19, 1841. 

" Ibid., August 4, 1843. For a different impression see Tyler, Letters 
and Times of the Tylers, II., pp. 101-105. 

" Ibid., August 4, 1843. 

*" Ibid., February 17, 1842; Ibid., May 26, 1843. This number of the 
Enquirer contains an estimate of Webster as a man and a statesman. 

*^ Richmond Enquirer, February 26, 1842; Ibid., March 3, 1842. 

^'^ Ibid., June 8, 25, 1841; Ibid., July 20, 1841 ; Ibid., August 10, 20, 
1841. 

** Richmond Enquirer, March 10, 1842. 

**The Democrats gained 38 members in the House of Delegates, con- 
verting a Whig majority of 2 into a Democratic majority of 36. Ibid., 
May 6, 1842. 



Virginia and Presidential Succession 173 

Ritchie's policies and restored him to his former place of 
influence in his party. 

Although he had retired from public life in disgust, 
Clay continued to gain in popular favor in those parts of 
eastern Virginia where the state-rights Whigs had been 
strongest. Except for the mistakes made by Botts, the 
work of the national Whig leaders was effective. The con- 
tinuation of financial embarrassments, the growing desire 
for manufacturing industries, and the impetus given to in- 
ternal improvements by the building of railroads and the 
application of steam to navigation, made Henry Clay and 
the principles of the Whig party popular with the artisan, 
commercial, and manufacturing Interests.*^ In both 
Petersburg and Richmond hundreds of persons signed peti- 
tions to Congress praying for the enactment of a pro- 
tective tariff law.*** Many pronounced the financial " ex- 
periments " of Jackson and of Van Buren failures, and in- 
sisted that a national bank was necessary to regulate the 
currency and to produce the return of desirable business 
conditions.*'^ As to its constitutionality they were un- 
willing to go beyond the opinion of James Madison, who 
had sustained the national bank In 18 16 and at other 
times.*^ Thus the Whigs continued to be formidable until 
the contest was ended. 

Inability to gain a popular following among the Demo- 
crats of Virginia, Clay's retirement from active participa- 
tion in politics, and the demonstrations In favor of a pro- 
tective tariff, caused Tyler to think of appealing 
to the " moderates of both parties " and doubtless 

*" House Journal, 27 Cong. 2d sess., pp. 532, 611, 617, 680, 793, 810, 854; 
Niles Register, LXIL, pp. 288, 302. De Bow, Re'vieiv, X., p. 542. 

*' Richmond Enquirer, June 17, 24, 1842. 

*' Wise favored the recharter of a national bank. Wise, Seven Dec- 
ades of the Union, p. 187. 

*^ Richmond Enquirer, September 6, 1844; Hunt, Writings of James 
Madison, IX., pp. 365, 442. 



174 C.'H. Ambler 

influenced his decision to sign the tariff bill of 1 842." But 
it was too late to conciliate the Whigs. They laid their 
defeats in the local elections at Tyler's door; ^° J. M. Botts 
was insisting upon his impeachment; ^^ and the Richmond 
Whig continued to comment upon his incompetency. At 
the same time the Democrats completely deserted him. 
They had received all the available spoils and were dis- 
gusted with his recent concessions to the Whigs and his 
approval of the tariff bill of 1842.°' With the Demo- 
crats went some of his former state-rights Whig advisers, 
who now drew closer to Calhoun. But Tyler was obstinate 
and continued to pursue the presidency and duty, when 
guided by no other light than that " reflected from burning 
effigies." °^ 

Meanwhile the contest within the Democratic party 
had commenced in earnest. The strength of the Van 
Buren faction lay chiefly in the western counties and was 
composed largely of friends of General Jackson. The 
leaders were James McDowell of Rockbridge County, 
Thomas Jefferson Randolph of Albemarle County, and 
George C. Dromgoole of Brunswick County. McDowell 
was a brother-in-law of Thomas H. Benton, and the ablest 
politician west of the Blue Ridge. Randolph was a grand- 
son of Thomas Jefferson, and was intensely jealous of 
W. C. Rives, who laid claim to the political legacies of 
both Jefferson and Madison. As Rives had drifted 
farther from Van Buren in his opposition to the Independ- 
ent Treasury scheme, Randolph had drawn closer to him. 
Dromgoole was the ablest leader on the " southside " of 
the James, but he was given to habits of intemperance 

" Tyler, Letters and Times of the Tylers, II., p. 182. 

^"Richmond M'^hig, May 20, 1842; Richmond Enquirer, May 24, 1842. 

" Ibid., September 9, 1842. 

^^ Richmond Enquirer, August 26, 1842. 

" Niles Register, LXL, p. 177. 



Virginia and Presidential Succession 175 

which greatly Impaired his usefulness." To these leaders 
should be added the names of Dr. John Brockenb rough, 
president of the bank of Virginia, Judge Henry St. George 
Tucker, president of the court of appeals. Judge Peter V. 
Daniel of the United States district court, and W. H. 
Roane, late senator In Congress. Each one of the last 
named group had been prominent In the " Richmond 
Junta." 

Because of Its importance In this and other contests, 
'* the Junta " requires more than passing mention. It was 
the name given to a number of relatives '^^ and political 
associates, who rendezvoused at Richmond ^® and exercised 
a power in party organization and in the distribution of 
patronage, equaled only by its prototype, the Albany Re- 
gency. It was held together, not merely as an organiza- 
tion to secure the spoils and joyful triumphs of pohtical 
victories — it was the heart of that great party, then con- 
fined largely to western Virginia, where the theories of 
Thomas Jefiferson and of Patrick Henry ^^ regarding the 
rights of majorities in government, continued to live. Be- 
fore this time it had engaged in many a gallant and suc- 
cessful fight against " Calhounism." ^® 

Two other tried and trusted members of the Junta, 

"* W. H. Roane to Martin Van Buren, September ii, 1843. Fan 
Buren MSS. 

°° Ritchie, Roane, and Brockenbrough were cousins. Judge Richard E. 
Parker of the Virginia Court of Appeals, who died in 1840, was also a 
member of the Junta, and a relative of Ritchie and Roane. He was pos- 
sibly the ablest leader in it. On more than one occasion Van Buren offered 
him a place in his cabinet. See Fan Buren MSS. 

" The public prints for this period contain many references to the 
Richmond Junta. 

°' W. H. Roane, a moving spirit in the Junta, was a grandson of 
Patrick Henry. " Jeffersonian principles " was the slogan of the Rich- 
mond leaders. 

'* Some of its leaders had committed themselves to Van Buren in letters 
written to him. See Fan Buren MSS. 



176 C. H. Ambler 

Thomas Ritchie, of the Richmond Enquirer, and Andrew 
Stevenson, ex-speaker of the national House of Representa- 
tives, were friendly to the candidacy of Van Buren, but 
were not, for obvious reasons, enthusiastic in his support. 
As has already been seen, the Democrats and former 
state-rights Whigs of eastern Virginia, many of whom were 
friends of Calhoun, had just restored Ritchie to his place 
of influence in his party. Only base ingratitude or ex- 
treme narrowness of political vision, neither of which were 
characteristic of him, could have induced Ritchie to turn 
abruptly against these friends. Until late in the contest 
his peculiar relations with each faction and the extreme 
necessity for discretion influenced the columns of the En- 
quirer. More than once W. H. Roane wrote to Silas 
Wright of the " narrow place " in which Mr. Ritchie 
found himself, and of the handicap which his necessitated 
inactivity placed upon their plans in Virginia.^® His desire 
to be either governor of Virginia or vice-president of the 
United States, and his willingness to make political al- 
liances which would promote one or the other of these am- 
bitions, kept Stevenson from taking sides. It Is not Im- 
probable that his ambition was a factor with Ritchie. They 
were " old cronies," and Ritchie thought that the party 
should vindicate Stevenson against the recent attacks made 
upon his conduct as minister of the United States at the 
court of St. James."" 

Calhoun's party was confined almost entirely to eastern 
Virginia. A very large number of his friends were former 
Whigs, who had either followed their leader Into the 
Democratic party in 1837, or deserted the Whig party 
in 1 841. Of Calhoun's party W. H. Roane wrote: 

°° W. H. Roane to Martin Van Buren, February 14, 1843. Van 
Buren MSS. 

*" The Ste'venson MSS. in the Library of Congress contains some inter- 
esting letters from Ritchie to Stevenson. 



Virginia and Presidential Succession 177 

" There is quite a stiff party in this state, calling themselves 
State Rights Republicans, many of whom were a few years 
ago State Rights Whigs." ^^ The leaders of this party 
were: R. M. T. Hunter of Essex County, who had long 
been Calhoun's right-hand man in Virginia, although he 
had not followed closely the political affiliations of his 
leader; James A. Seddon of Richmond, whose chief 
political duty was to watch and report the movements of 
the Junta; Wm. O. Goode of Mecklenberg county, the 
rival of Geo. C. Dromgoole; Wm. F. Gordon of 
Albemarle county, who, as a Whig member of Congress, 
had, in 1834, proposed the Independent Treasury system; 
and Wm. P. Taylor of Caroline county, a worthy son of 
the illustrious John Taylor of Caroline. 

With all that aggressiveness and impatience which char- 
acterized the followers of Calhoun, his friends led off in 
this contest. In the early part of 1842 they circulated a 
pamphlet to set forth the claims and qualifications of their 
favorite for the presidency. About the same time the 
Lynchburg Republican and the Norfolk Chronicle and 
Old Dominion nominated him and Silas Wright for the 
presidency and vice-presidency, respectively."- But Cal- 
houn could not hope for success in Virginia without the sup- 
port of Ritchie and the Enquirer. He complained of Mr. 
Ritchie's policy of keeping Virginia attached to New York 
and Pennsylvania, when she (Virginia) should " be at the 
head of the South." "^ For reasons already shown, the 
time was now thought opportune for effecting a long cov- 
eted alliance with the Richmond Junta. The Richmond 



" W. H. Roane to Martin Van Buren, February 9 and 14, 1843. ^"^ 
Buren MSS. 

•' Thomas H. Benton to Martin Van Buren, April 17, 1842. Van 
Buren MSS. 

""Calhoun Correspondence," Am. Hist. Assn. Rept. (1899), H-. PP* 
517, 527, 538, S44i 546, 562, etc. 



178 C. H. Ambler 

Whig became the tool of its enemies and was used with 
other prints already committed, to sound Ritchie and to 
drive him to declare for Calhoun. He was alternately 
accused of being both a friend and an enemy.*^* After the 
enactment of the tariff law of 1842 Calhoun's friends, in 
keeping with their disposition to rule or to ruin, sought to 
intimidate by insisting that Calhoun would be a candidate 
for the presidency, whoever might be the choice of the 
Democratic national convention. ^^ 

To all these " prods " Ritchie was evasive. He ex- 
pressed the profoundest respect and admiration for the 
genius and ability of Mr. Calhoun, as demonstrated in his 
early public service, and since his return to the Republican 
principles of '98; ^® he denied the alleged existence, on his 
part, of a feeling of uncompromising hostility toward Cal- 
houn; and he assured the public that he would joyfully 
support him for the presidency, should he be the nominee 
of the Democratic party." But he consistently refused to 
commit himself to the candidacy of any man, preferring 
" the success of principles to the aggrandizement of any 
individual." «« 

The attitude of Ritchie and the temporary apathy of 
the friends of Van Buren were encouraging. Accord- 
ingly Barnwell H. Rhett, of South Carolina, came to Rich- 
mond in the autumn of 1842 and tried to ally Ritchie and 
the Junta actively in the interest of Calhoun.®^ He told 
them of Calhoun's intention to resign his seat in the federal 

•* Richmond Enquirer, August 12, 1842. 

*' Richmond Enquirer, October 18, 28, 1842; Ibid., November i, 4, 8, 
1842; see also " Calhoun Correspondence," Am. Hist. Assn. Report (1899), 
II., pp. 516, 517. 

"'Richmond Enquirer, August 12, 1842. 

"''Ibid., August 12, 1842; Ibid., November i, 4, 8, 1842. 

" Ibid., November 4, 8, 1842. 

" W. H. Roane to Martin Van Buren, September 11, 1843. Fan 
Buren MSS. 



Virginia and Presidential Succession 179 

Senate, and of his resolution to rest his claims to future 
political preferment on a book on the principles of gov- 
ernment, which he was then writing. He also raised ob- 
jections to the practice of electing delegates to the Demo- 
cratic national conventions by state conventions, and of 
permitting a majority of the delegates thus selected to cast 
the entire vote of a state. Moreover, he declared it 
to be the purpose of Calhoun's friends to remedy the al- 
leged defects in the national nominating body, and to post- 
pone the nomination to the latest possible date. The 
echoes from Rhett's visit had not ceased, when Calhoun 
took advantage of an opportunity to visit Richmond while 
on his way to Congress.^" He confirmed what Rhett had 
said and made overtures to the political leaders. 

The efforts of Calhoun were in vain, but they were 
treated with the greatest courtesy and with apparent con- 
sideration. Roane advised against his contemplated re- 
tirement from the Senate and his determination to risk his 
chances for the presidency upon the results of the con- 
test then pending."^^ Meanwhile Ritchie assured the 
public that it would not be entirely deprived of 
Mr. Calhoun's services, because " he is now writ- 
ing a book on the principles of government." " At 
the same time he was careful to deny the statement of the 
New York Herald to the effect that the Charleston (S. C.) 
Mercury and the Richmond Enquirer had come out openly 
in support of Mr. Calhoun.'^^ Of this and other attempts 
to win Ritchie, Wm. Selden, one of his closest political 
friends, said in a letter to Van Buren: " Every device had 



''" W. H. Roane to Martin Van Buren, September ii, 1843. Van 
Buren MSS. 

" Ibid. 

""Richmond Enquirer, December 8, 1842. 

" Neiv York Herald, December 5, 1842. See also Richmond Enquirer, 
December 8, 1842. 



i8o C. H. Ambler 

been freely exhausted to detract Mr. Ritchie from your 
support." '^•* 

With characteristic Impatience, the friends of Calhoun 
could not wait for developments and sought to force 
the issue. Accordingly, they refused to vote for Ste- 
venson in the gubernatorial contest then pending and 
either gave their support to James McDowell, or to an in- 
dependent candidate.'^^ Chagrined at the tactics of his 
new friends and alarmed at the demands of the west 
for an investigation of the state banks located in Rich- 
mond,^^ Ritchie dropped Stevenson and aided in making 
his rival, James McDowell, governor. At the same time 
he expressed, in a confidential way, to the friends of Mc- 
Dowell, his intention to support Van Buren for the presi- 
dency.^^ The desire to continue to be the spokesman of 
his party, which was now passing, to the leadership of the 
west, and to aid Stevenson in his candidacy for the vice- 
presidency doubtless influenced him In this decision. The 
following extract from a letter by John Letcher, later gov- 
ernor of Virginia, to Thomas H. Benton, throws light 
upon the inner workings of these transactions : 

" I can well imagine your surprise when I inform you that 
Ritchie is himself friendly to the election of Mr. Van Buren, in- 
deed takes him as his first choice over all who are spoken of in 
connection with the presidency. He regards his election as essen- 
tial to the purity of Republican principles — as the only fitting and 

''* Wm. Selden to Martin Van Buren, March 5, 6, 1843. Van Buren 
MSS.; also R. B. Gooch to Augusta Devezac, December, 1842. Fan 
Buren MSS. 

"John Letcher to Thomas H. Benton, December 15, 1842. Fan 
Buren MSS. 

" Ritchie owed a large sum to the State Bank of Virginia, of which 
his cousin. Dr. Brockenbough, was president. Richmond Enquirer, July 
15, 1842; Ibid., November 18, 1842; Ibid., January 12, 14, 19, 1843. 

"John Letcher to T. H. Benton, December 15, 1842. Fan Buren MSS. 
Letcher was the spokesman for his fellow townsman, McDowell, in his 
campaign for governor. 



Virginia and Presidential Succession i8i 

proper rebuke to the log-cabin and coon-skin fooleries of 1840, 
He told me in making these declarations that he had spoken more 
fully to me, than he had done to any one else and that he did not 
desire that ft should be made public until after our next spring 
elections for fear that it might be the means of creating such a 
division among our friends here, as had taken place in North 
Carolina in the Senatorial Election. ^^ As soon as these elections 
were over he assured me that he would take the same position in 
his paper. 

" The conversation led me to conclude that Stevenson seeks an 
alliance with Mr. Van Buren, on the Ticket, and that he will 
struggle for the nomination for the Vice-presidency, The Cal- 
hounites at Richmond are evidently taking up this idea, and the 
more indiscrete amongst them avow it openly. Hence they are 
dissatisfied with Stevenson and avow their determination to vote 
against him in the Gubernatorial Election, which takes place to- 
day. They also speak in harsh terms of Ritchie, and charge a col- 
lusion between the two, having for its sole object Stevenson's 
promotion. Knowing that such an opinion would result to Mr. 
McDowell's advantage, I was perfectly willing that they should 
entertain it, and use it to their heart's content." ''^ 

Two days later the Richmond Whig, In an editorial on 
the election of McDowell, said: "The Richmond 
Junta and the Richmond Enquirer have been de- 
feated by the mountains," and the Enquirer Is " therefore 
defunct." «« 

Alarmed at the concerted efforts of Calhoun's friends, 
Benton had, early In 1842, caused his followers in Mis- 
souri to nominate Van Buren for the presldency.^^ This 
done, he had hastened at once to the Hermitage to apprise 
the '* Old Hero " of the movements In the political world 
and to secure his Indorsement of Van Buren for a third 

'* The factional fight between the friends of Van Buren and Calhoun 
■was also on in North Carolina. Richmond Enquirer, January 7, 1843. 

^' December 15, 1842. Van Buren MSS. 

^'Richmond Enquirer, December 17, 1842. 

"^ Thomas H. Benton to Martin Van Buren, April 17, 1842. Taw 
Buren MSS. 



i82 C. H. Ambler 

nomination. Jackson's approval was cheerfully given 
and at once conveyed to his political henchmen, but it did 
not arouse much enthusiasm in Virginia. Occasionally a 
prominent leader committed himself; ®- but it was not until 
Congress and the state Assembly met in December, 1842, 
that the friends of Van Buren began to rally. In the As- 
sembly they outnumbered their opponents four to one,^^ 
and they administered stinging defeats to aspirants who 
sought office as the friends of Mr. Calhoun.** 

The first spirited contest to be fought at close range be- 
tween these rival factions took place in the Democratic 
state convention, which met in Richmond, March 2, 
1843. It was waged over the method of organization 
and the time for holding the proposed Democratic national 
convention. Led by James A. Seddon, the friends of Cal- 
houn favored May or June, 1844, and insisted that the 
delegates thereto should be elected by congressional dis- 
tricts, and that each delegate should have one vote on the 
floor of the convention. Following the command of 
W^right and Benton,*^ the friends of Van Buren, led by 
Geo. C. Dromgoole, favored an earlier date, October or 
November, 1843, for holding the convention, and adhered 
to the old method of appointing delegates thereto by state 
conventions and of letting the majority of a state's dele- 
gates cast the vote of that state.*" They insisted upon an 
early nomination to prevent sectional and personal jeal- 
ousies, which they feared would arise at the next Congress 

*^ p. V. Daniel to Martin Van Buren, December i6, 1841. Van Buren 
MSS. See also J. R. Poinsett to Martin Van Buren, October 7, 1842, on 
conditions in Virginia. Van Buren MSS. 

" G. W. Hopkins to Martin Van Buren, February 20, 1843. Van 
Buren MSS. 

^* Richmond Enquirer, February 28, 1843. 

" F. P. Blair to M. Van Buren, January 17, 1843. ^<*« Buren MSS. 

'^Richmond Enquirer, March 7, 1843. G. VV. Hopkins to M. Van 
Buren, February 20, 1843. Van Buren MSS. 



, 



Virginia and Presidential Succession 183 

and prevent their ultimate success. On the other hand, 
their opponents desired a late nomination so far as the 
choice of a candidate was concerned, for directly opposite 
reasons. They expected sectional issues to arise, which 
would make Van Buren an unavailable candidate. If they 
were not already looking to Texas,®^ they expected that the 
agitation of the tariff would unite the south in support of 
their favorite, Calhoun.®^ So skillfully had the organiza- 
tion been manipulated that Seddon's plan carried in 
the select committee on address, but it was voted 
down on the floor of the convention.^® Then the 
friends of Van Buren passed resolutions which rec- 
ommended that the national convention be held on 
the fourth Monday in November, 1843, ^^^ that 
the delegptes thereto be chosen by congressional dis- 
tricts anc instructed to vote by states, each state having 
as man^ votes as It had members in Congress, and the 
majority of the state's delegation casting the whole vote.®" 
As the followers of Calhoun had hoped, by their plan, 
to control a large part of the delegation to the national con- 
vention, the decision of the Democratic state convention in 
Virginia came as a stinging defeat. The Charles- 
tm (S. C.) Mercury raised strenuous objections 
to the whole proceedings.®^ It insisted that Ritchie 
'*' had everything cut and dried for Van Buren." 
\RitchIe replied In a long editorial article In which he 
denied the charge that he had called and organized the con- 
vention, but admitted taking a deep interest in It. He in- 

' A. Stevenson to Van Buren, October 8, 1843. Van Buren MSS.; John 
P^etcher to Thomas Ritchie, September 23, 1843. Ibid. 

'Richmond Enquirer, March 7, 1843; "Calhoun Correspondence," Am. 
list. Assn. Kept. (1899), II., p. 516. 

• Richmond Enquirer, March 7, 11, 1843. 

"Ibid., March n, 1843. 

^ Ibid., March 11, 1843; Silas Wright to Martin Van Buren, April lo, 
'•843. Van Buren MSS. 



184 C. H. Ambler 

sisted, however, that his interest had always been di- 
rected to promote accord, and to that end he had pre- 
sided at conferences of the rival factions.®^ The Mercury 
would not be appeased, and defiantly placed at the head of 
its editorial column, "JOHN C. CALHOUN, FOR 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, subject to 
the decision of a national convention to be held in May, 
1844."^^ 

The next tilt between the rival factions came in the elec- 
tions held in April, 1843. It was alleged that the major- 
ity in the Assembly had gerrymandered the state to pre- 
vent the election of representatives to Congress or of 
delegates to a national convention, who would be 
friendly to Mr. Calhoun.®* But the consequent apathy, 
on the part of the friends of Calhoun, injured only 
themselves and in a way they could ill affoii. Wm. 
O. Goode was defeated by Geo. C. Dromgoo'e for a 
renomination for election to Congress ; ®^ Hunter failed 
in his contest for a re-election; ®® and Wm. Smith (Extra 
Billy), an avowed friend of Calhoun, went down to de- 
feat at the polls before a Whig, Samuel Chilton.®^ As a 
result of these contests Calhoun did not have a friend in 
Virginia's delegation in Congress, except those who were 
also friendly to Tyler.*® 

True to his former promises,®* and to comply with the 
earnest solicitations of those who did not understand the 
reasons for his prolonged silence, ^"'^ Ritchie now declarec 

" Richmond Enquirer, March i8, 1843. 
" Ibid., April 4, 1844. 

'* Richmond Enquirer, May 9, 12, 19, 1843. 
'^ Ibid., April 7, 1843. 

"''Ibid., June 13, 1843; Neiu Orleans Republican, May 31, 1843. 
'"'Richmond Enquirer, May 16, 19, 1843. 
" Richmond Enquirer, August 8, 1843. 
*" See letter of John Letcher to T. H. Benton, December 15, 1842. Fan 
Buren MSS. 

P. V. Daniel to M. Van Buren, July 6, 1843. ^«« Buren MSS. 



100 



Virginia and Presidential Succession 185 

through the columns of the Enquirer his intention to sup- 
port Martin Van Buren for the presidency/"^ In so doing 
he desired to have it clearly understood, " that it is not 
* the boys ' who make the declaration, but ' Father 
Ritchie.' " "- To prevent the establishment of a rival 
paper in Richmond he took the precaution, however, to 
make it understood that the columns of the Enquirer would 
be open to the friends of Mr. Calhoun. ^"^ 

The open declaration of Ritchie was felt immediately 
in all directions. Other prints favorable to Calhoun's 
candidacy, the Petersburg Republican and the Wytheville 
Republican and Virginia Constitutionalist, made their ap- 
pearance,^"* and the Charleston Mercury and Mobile 
Tribune attacked the Richmond Enquirer without mercy ."^ 
Except the four papers, which had already declared for 
Calhoun, the press of the Democratic party followed 
the course of the Enquirer.^^^ The prints of western 
Virginia became enthusiastic. The Abingdon Banner 
thought that Calhoun had not yet lived down the 
odium of nullification and added that " it would indeed 
be * carrying coals to New Castle ' to offer reasons and con- 
siderations to the voters of Little Tennessee why they 
should support Martin Van Buren," ^"^ *' and the Wood- 
stock Sentinel went for Martin Van Buren and short Dutch 
cabbage against the world." ^"* 

^"^ Richmond Enquirer, July 18, 1843. 

'"^Ritchie had recently associated with himself as editors of the En- 
quirer his two sons, Wm. F. and Thomas, Jr. Richmond Enquirer, March 
2, 1843. 

^"^ Richmond Enquirer, June 6, 1843. Calhoun thought there should be 
a rival press in Richmond. See " Correspondence," Am. Hist. Assn. Re- 
port (1899), II., pp. 529, 536. 

^"^ Richmond Enquirer, June 27, 1843. 

^"^ Ibid., September 15, 19, 1843. 

^'" See ibid., August i, 15, September 5, 12, 1843. 

^"^ August 12, 1843; see also Richmond Enquirer, August 22, 1843. 

^^ July 27, 1843 ; see also Richmond Enquirer, August i, 1843. 



i86 C. H. Ambler 

The friends of Calhoun became alarmed. They scat- 
tered broadcast the selected and revised speeches of their 
leader.^"^ The Spectator, a mouthpiece for their party, 
was established in Washington; ^" " Calhoun's Plenipoten- 
tiary," Rhett, made another visit to Richmond to see 
Van Buren's " Secretary of the Southern Department," 
Ritchie; "^ a sigh went up for *' the proud old Dominion 
under " the feet of the Empire State; "^ and talk of throw- 
ing the election into the House of Representatives and of 
Calhoun's refusing to abide by the decision of a national 
convention was abundant."^ Publicly the leaders friendly 
to Calhoun professed to desire most of all a reduction of 
the tariff,"* but their chief interest and hope lay in the " re- 
annexation of Texas," "^ an asset which they had stolen 
from the political capital with which Tyler had attempted 
to form a third party."® This issue was to be kept a 
profound secret and was to be used to effect a coup d'etat, 
if an opportunity presented itself."^ 

But the friends of Van Buren were on the alert, as the 
following extract from a letter of John Letcher to Thomas 
Ritchie shows: 

^'"' Ibid., September 15, 1843. 

"° J. L. Martin to M. Van Buren, September 19, 1843. Van Buren MSS. 

^^^ Richmond Enquirer, September 15, 1843. 

^^* " Calhoun Correspondence," Am. Hist. Assn. Kept. (1899), II., pp. 
527, 536. 

^^^ Richmond Enquirer, October 13, 1843; Ibid., December i, 5, 1843; 
Alexandria Gazette, November 30, 1843. 

^^* Richmond Enquirer, February i, 1844; Thomas Ritchie to H. A. Gar- 
land, January 8, 1844. Fan Buren MSS. 

*'° Andrew Stevenson to Martin Van Buren, October 8, 1843. Van 
Buren MSS.; W. H. Roane to Martin Van Buren, October 17, 1843. Van 
Buren MSS.; Richmond Enquirer, December 12, 14, 1843. 

^^^ Richmond Enquirer, July 4, 1843; Ibi^^-, December 12, 14, 16, 1843; 
"Calhoun Correspondence," Am. Hist. Assn. Rept. (1899), II., p. 556. 

"'A. Stevenson to M. Van Buren, October 8, 1843. Van Buren MSS. 
Little credit was given to the rumor that Van Buren and Clay had made anij 
agreement to keep the question of Texas out of the campaign. 



Virginia and Presidential Succession 187 

" Unless I am greatly deceived," said Letcher, " in information 
lately obtained they [the followers of Calhoun] are preparing 
to stack the cards upon us. You will recollect a letter on the 
annexation of Texas, written by Gilmer, and which made its 
appearance last winter. That letter was sent to General Jack- 
son in manuscript, and in reply to the request which accom- 
panied it, the Old Hero wrote out his views at large, showing 
particularly the advantages [of Texas] in a military point of 
view to the United States. This letter I understand is in the 
possession of the Calhounites, and is to be used at the Baltimore 
Convention. Mr. Van Buren is to be interrogated about the 
time of the meeting of that body, and it is expected that he will 
answer in opposition to the scheme. Mr. Calhoun is to approve the 
annexation and his answer is to be at the Convention ready for 
use." "« 

By a comparison of this letter with the writings of vari- 
ous historians,"^ it will be seen that it contains almost the 
same language as that used by them to describe an alleged 
plan on the part of his supposed friends in the south to de- 
prive Martin Van Buren of the nomination of the Demo- 
cratic party in 1844. The disposition made of this letter 
and their frank disavowal of its suggestions should free 
Van Buren's " friends " in Virginia from even a suspicion 
of double-dealing. After passing the rounds of the Junta, 
this letter was sent by W. H. Roane to Mr. Van Buren. ^-'^ 
Calhoun's friends were not deceived. The tone of the 
Enquirer and the caution of their rivals let it be known that 
their secret was out. Accordingly they were not surprised 
r disappointed, when, at a public dinner in King William 
ounty, Henry A. Wise, either ill-advisedly or purposely, 
prang the question of the re-annexation of Texas.^-^ In 

° September 23, 1843. Van Buren MSS. 
jl ^"Hammond, Political Hist, of the State of New York, III., p. 447; 
jj\lexander, Political Hist, of State of Neiv York, II., pp. 66, 67 ; Shepherd, 
mlartin Van Buren, pp. 402-412. 
I "» Van Buren MSS., October 17, 1843. 

{ ^^^ Richmond Enquirer, October 20, 1843; "Calhoun Correspondence," 
Um. Hist. Asso. Kept. (1899), II., p. 549. 



1 88 C. H. Ambler 

his characteristic and exaggerated style Wise insisted that 
immediate annexation was necessary to prevent Great 
Britain from abolishing negro slavery in independent 
Texas, and thus paving the way for the abolition of negro 
slavery in the United States/^^ 

At the time it was made, this revelation produced 
scarcely a ripple and did not apparently cause Van Buren 
to lose a single friend in Virginia. The leaders thought 
it the proverbial straw in the sight of a drowning man. If 
we had not already opened negotiations to acquire Texas, 
they knew that we were about to do so.^^^ " Since it had 
probably become a matter for diplomatic consideration," 
Ritchie regretted Wise's indiscretion, but he insisted that 
the midst of a presidential campaign was not a propitious 
time for " the free discussion and calm consideration of so 
vital a subject." ^-* About the same time W. H. Roane 
wrote to Van Buren that he had long " opposed the annex- 
ation of Texas," and that he now saw " nothing to change 
his mind." ^-^ 

Although hopeful that " it might come out all right," ^-^ 
Van Buren's friends in Virginia could not dismiss Texas.- 1 
Like Banquo's ghost it was ever reappearing. TheV .! 
feared the outcome and the probable attitude of their can-j ' 
didate toward it. They would have given anything tqjl 
know his position, but knew not how to draw him out. Irt(j 
a statement which causes surprise, to say the least, coming j 
as it did from a man prominent in public life in 1836, when 
Texas had been an issue, and purporting to speak for om 
of the most sagacious journalists of the day, Roane im 
formed Van Buren that "neither Ritchie nor I recoUecj, 

^"'Richmond Enquirer, October 20, 1843. 

^"A. Stevenson to M. Van Buren, October 8, 1843. Fati Buren MSS.,^ 

Richmond Enquirer, October 10, 1843. [ 

''' Ibid. 

^"° October 17, 1843. Van Buren MSS. 
*°° A. Stevenson to Martin Van Buren, October 8, 1843. Fan Buren MSSl 



Virginia and Presidential Succession 189 

your position in regard to It" (Texas), and assured him 
that any information on that subject " would be regarded 
with the strictest confidence." "^ With an equal degree of 
improbability as to their strict accuracy, Stevenson made 
similar statements/-^ The profound silence maintained by 
Van Buren only increased the doubt and uncertainty of his 
friends. 

The stirring events of September and October, 1843, 
brought forth opinions, which help to explain Calhoun's 
unpopularity in Virginia. Ritchie doubted his ability to 
live down nullification.^-^ Actuated by the democratic 
ideas of his Illustrious grandfather, Patrick Henry, Wm. 
H. Roane could not assent to *' all the learned jargon " 
(now termed philosophy) about *' the rights of minori- 
ties." With Calhoun In the presidency, he would have 
been In " constant terror, expecting from him some 
new-fangled scheme or view," and he was willing to 
wager his life upon it that " the book he Is now writ- 
ing will be John Taylor of Caroline with metaphysical 
variations." ^^^ 

On the other hand, there is abundant evidence to lead 
one to believe that Calhoun was then held, by a large 
minority of the people, in that high esteem with which he 
is now generally regarded. The extent and accuracy of his 
knowledge, the strength of his judgment, the brilliancy of 
his genius, his bold and chivalrous discharge of duty, and 
" the almost immaculate purity of his character " ^^^ made 
for him warm and uncompromising friends, in the same 
manner that these traits have made popular other Amer- 

\ "' October 17, 1843, Fan Buren MSS. 

1 ^^^ He had been speaker of the House of Representatives from Decem- 
ler, 1827, to December, 1835. The annexation of Texas had been dis- 
ussed in 1829 and in 1835-36. 
*'"* Richmond Enquirer, September 22, 1843. 

^"' W. H. Roane to M. Van Buren, September 11, 1843. Van Buren MSS. 
*'^ Richmond Enquirer, February 4, 1844. 



190 C. H. Ambler 

icans, who have been no more successful politically than 
was Calhoun. 

After the meeting of Congress and the state legisla- 
ture in December, 1843, Calhoun's popularity waned rap- 
idly. He was unable to control the organization of or 
even a considerable party in either. Rumor had it that he 
would withdraw from the contest.^^- Contrary to expecta- 
tions, some of the southern states had decided against 
him,^^^ and the more lukewarm among his followers in Vir- 
ginia began to drift either to Clay or to Van Buren.^^* 

The leaders of Calhoun's party did not despair and 
determined to fight to the last. R. K. Cralle visited some 
of the western counties and tried to control their local con- 
ventions.^^^ The Petersburg Intelligencer continued to 
complain of the " petulance," " dotage," and " dictator- 
ship " of Ritchie, ^^"^ and finally it was decided to carry the 
fight into the Democratic state convention, which met at 
Richmond, February i, 1844. 

On the evening before the convention met, however, Cal- 
houn's address to the " political friends and supporters " 
came and gave an unexpected turn to events. It % 
was the opinion of many that this paper had 
been held back until this opportune time with I 
the hope that it might turn the tide from Van i 
Buren.^^^ In this " ultimatum " Calhoun condemned the 
plans of organization and the methods of choosing dele- 
gates to the proposed national convention, and he declared 
it to be his purpose to support for an election to the presi- 
dency no candidate of the Democratic party " who is op- 



1*2 

133 



Ibid., December 27, 1843. 

Ibid.; "Calhoun Correspondence," Am. Hist. Assn. Rept. (1899), II.,f 

PP- 554, 556. 

^""Richmond Enquirer, January 13, 1844; Ibid., January 27, 1844. 

^''^ Ibid., January 11, 1844. 

^*' Ibid., January 18, 1844. 

"^ H. A. Garland to M. Van Buren, February 7, 1844. Fan Buren MSS\ 



Virginia and Presidential Succession 191 

posed to free trade or whose prominent and influential 
friends are," or one " who gives his aid and countenance to 
the agitation of aboHtion in Congress, or elsewhere, or 
whose prominent friends and influential supporters shall." 
He also expressed a desire that his name be not used be- 
fore the Baltimore convention in connection with the nom- 
ination for the presidency."* The effect was entirely dif- 
ferent from that expected or contemplated. Immediately 
the friends of Calhoun held a caucus. They decided that 
the address was a resignation of Calhoun's candidacy, that 
it released them from their duty to support him, and that 
they would support the nominee of the Democratic 
party."^ 

Thus the state convention became a Democratic love- 
feast. In enthusiastic and patriotic speeches, R. M. T. 
Hunter, W. F. Gordon, and James S. Barbour announced 
the decision of their caucus, but placed the ultimate conse- 
quences of Van Buren's election upon his friends."" Ritchie 
seized the opportunity and, in the only important political 
speech of his life, welcomed the return of political accord 

i and assumed, for his faction of the party, the responsibility 
for the consequences."^ The convention adopted concili- 
atory resolutions and placed a number of Calhoun's friends 

i upon the electoral ticket."- The next number of the En- 



'" W. H. Roane to M. Van Buren, February 3, 1844. Van Buren MSS.; 
Richmond Enquirer, February i, 1844; Ibid., February 6, 1844. 

^** Richmond Enquirer, February 6, 1844. The friends of Calhoun is- 
sued an address. They could not remain neutral, and the dangers of the 
election of Clay were becoming so great that they could not remain in- 
active. They would therefore support Van Buren. Ibid., February 10, 
1844; H. A. Garland to Martin Van Buren, February 7, 1844. Van 
Buren MSS. In a letter to R. M. T. Hunter, dated February i, 1844, Cal- 
houn gave up all hope of success in Virginia. " Calhoun Correspondence,"" 
\m. Hist. Assn. Rept. (1899), II., p. 562. 
^^"' Richmond Enquirer, February 6, 1844. 
'" Ibid. 
^*' Richmond Enquirer, February 8, 1844. 



192 C. H. Ambler 

quirer proclaimed the Democratic party of Virginia " one 
and indivisible," and announced that " The Ark . . . 
which has been agitated on the billows of the sea of liberty 
. . . has now touched the summit of Mount Ararat — the 
rainbow of peace is brightening the Heavens — and the 
Dove has gone forth from the Ark to bring back the Olive 
Branch to all our party." "^ It was currently rumored and 
generally believed that Ritchie and the Junta had commit- 
ted themselves to Calhoun for the succession in 1848,' 
and Van Buren was informed that he could rely upon the 
vote of Virginia and South Carolina/*^ On February 26, 
1844, two days before the death of Abel P. Upshur on the 
ill-fated Princeton, and thus before Calhoun could have en- 
tertained a notion of becoming secretary of state, B. H. 
Rhett informed Van Buren that Calhoun was no longer a 
candidate for the presidency."*^ 

With one accord the Democrats now directed their en- 
ergies to the spring elections and to the necessity of pre-' 
serving unity within their party. Ritchie was also active fi 
in furthering the candidacy of Stevenson for thef 
vice-presidency.^*^ With a view to the coming elec- 
tions all reference to Texas was scrupulously avoided. 1 
With the greatest caution, lest they should either; 
alienate the Democracy of the north or revive thei 
Calhoun party or jeopardize the interests of Steven- 
son, the tariff was made the chief issue. "^ Unavail- 
ing efforts were also made to have Van Buren commit him- 
self upon this subject in more satisfactory terms than those 

"' Ibid., February 3, 1843. 

^** To the day of his death Ritchie never ceased to deny the repeated 
assertion that he had made an alliance with Calhoun on this occasion. 

^"W. H. Roane to Van Buren, February 3, 1844, and H. A. Garland 
to Van Buren, February 7, 1844. Van Buren MSS. 

^*°P. H. Rhett to M. Van Buren, February 26, 1844. Van Buren MS^ 

^*'' Richmond Enquirer, February 13, 1844. 

^^'^ Richmond Enquirer, January 11, 1844; Ibid., February 23, 1844. 



Virginia and Presidential Succession 193 

used by him in his response to the Democratic state con- 
vention of Indiana/*^ 

Ignore it as they would, Texas continued to be the one 
question of vital importance. The pending treaty for its 
annexation and the uncertainty of the final outcome, seemed 
to command silence on the part of both Democrats and 
Whigs. But it would not down. In March, 1844, the 
Northern prints and the National Intelligencer discussed 
almost nothing but Texas. About the same time Senator 
Walker's famous letter on its reannexatlon found its way 
into the press. ^^'^ Silence on the part of Virginians was no 
longer possible or expedient. 

Practically every prominent Democrat of Virginia fa- 
vored the " reannexation of Texas." ^" Since 1829 
Ritchie had lost no opportunity to support it,"^ and Roane 
now saw both the wisdom and expediency of such a 
course.^^^ With born expansionists and with a people who 
had a larger surplus quantity of slave property, which 
would find a ready market by the extension of the south- 
west, it was not strange that the desire for Texas became a 
passion. 

But there is little or no evidence that their enthusiasm 
for slave territory or their fears of his probable attitude 
toward Texas caused Mr. Van Buren's friends to think, at 
this time, of abandoning his candidacy. On the other 
hand, they tried to bring him to their way of thinking and 
thus promote his ultimate success. To this end Ritchie 

"'Thomas Ritchie to H. A. Garland, January 8, 1844; H. A. Garland 
to Van Buren, January 12, 1844; S. B. French to Van Buren, February 18, 
1844. Van Buren MSS. 

"" Richmond Enquirer, March 23, 26, 29, 1844. 

"^ The opposition made by the W^higs was largely for the sake of 
politics, and was directed against the manner of acquiring and not the 
policy. 

'" Richmond Enquirer, March 22, 1844. 

"* Letter to Van Buren, April 20, 1844. Van Buren MSS. 



• 



194 C. H. Ambler 

wrote to Silas Wright, Van Buren's closest political adviser, 
as follows : 

" I send you the following extract of a letter I received last 
night from Washington: 

"'March 17 — The Texas question is destined to succeed. I 
think the treaty when made will certainly be ratified. . . . To- 
morrow evening a decisive article will appear in the Globe. 
General Jackson is most heartily with us, and will go the whole. 
He is the originator of this movement and will see it through — 
Unless forced to do so we must not make this a party question — 
Unless there is great imprudence or folly, Van Buren will be 
elected — but if he goes against Texas (which I deem impossible) 
all is lost.' 

" I would send you the original letter, but it is marked ' con- 
fidential.' The writer is a member of Congress and a friend of 
Mr. Van Buren. — Be so good as to consider its contents con- 
fidential, with the reservation only, that if you think it best, you 
may communicate them to Mr. V. B. I leave that disposition of 
them to your own discretion." ^°* 

Two days later Ritchie published, under date of Febru- 
ary 12, 1844, General Jackson's letter of February 12, 
1843, to Aaron V. Brown of Tennessee, in which the an- 
nexation of Texas was urged on the ground of military 
necessity."^ About the same time and in keeping with the 
nation-wide demand to know the opinion of public men, W. 
H. Hammett of Mississippi interrogated Martin Van 
Buren regarding his opinions on the proposed annexation 
of Texas. ^^® The typographical error in the pubhcatlon 
of a letter of such vital Interest and upon such a delicate 
subject, which had been kept from the public for more than 
a year, and the interrogation of Van Buren by a slave- 

^" Ritchie to Silas Wright, March 20, 1844. Van Buren MSS. 

'°° Richmond Enquirer, March 22, 1844. 

"• W. H. Hammett to Martin Van Buren, March 27, 1844. Fan Buren 
MSS. Jefferson Davis of Mississippi had interrogated him two days 
earlier. Fan Buren MSS. 



Virginia and Presidential Succession 195 

owner In the secrets of the Democratic party have caused 
historians to give credence to the alleged existence of a 
plot, mentioned above, to keep the nomination from going 
to Van Buren."^ Writers who have accepted this in- 
terpretation and implied, or asserted, that Van Buren's 
friends in Virginia were parties to it, were certainly igno- 
rant of the fact that W. H. Roane had, five months before 
the publication of Jackson's letter to Brown, informed Van 
Buren of the existence of such a letter and of the use pro- 
posed to be made of It.^^^ They have also overlooked the 
fact that Ritchie corrected, In the next issue of the Enquirer, 
the typographical error made in the original publication 
of the letter from Jackson to Brown, and called attention 
to the fact that an error had been made/^® 

While other public men were daily giving their opinions 
regarding the annexation of Texas,"" the Democrats of 
Virginia waited Impatiently to hear from Van Buren upon 
that subject. It is evident from their correspondence 
that they appreciated the difficulties which confronted him 
in the north and that they would have preferred to keep the 
Texas question out of the campaign entirely. After 
a month's delay and after the exchange of many 
opinions with Silas Wright "^ regarding the expedient 
course to pursue, Van Buren replied to Hammett 
in an able and carefully written letter."- He op- 
posed immediate annexation on the ground that It would be 

'"Alexander, Political Hist, of State of Neiv York, II., p. 66; Ham- 
mond, Political History of State of Neiv York, III., p. 447 ; McLaughlin, 
Cass, p. 215; Shephard, Fan Buren, pp. 401-406, etc. 

'"' W. H. Roane to Van Buren, October 17, 1843. Van Buren MSS. 

^'''Richmond Enquirer, March 26, 1844. This correction was made be- 
fore it had been suggested by Mr. Niles or any other editor. 

"" Clay came out against the annexation of Texas on April 17, 1844. 
He had just returned from a tour of the southern states. 

"' See Fan Buren MSS., for March and April, 1844. 

^"' Van Buren to VV. H. Hammett, April 20, 1844. Fan Buren MSS.; 
Richmond Enquirer, April 30, 1844. 



196 C. H. Ambler 

a breach of neutrality, as Texas and Mexico were then at 
war with each other, but he thought it within the constitu- 
tional powers of Congress to acquire territory. This let- 
ter came to Richmond on April 30th, when the Democrats 
were receiving the returns from an unsuccessfully contested 
election for members of the General Assembly."^ Its ef- 
fect is best described in a letter from Roane to Van Buren : 

" Your letter to Mr. Hammett," said he, " is just received 
here and has caused a sensation and is likely to produce an effect 
which no paper has caused or produced in my knowledge." ^®* 
He also informed him that the publication of his letter two 
weeks earlier would have given the House of Delegates of the 
Assembly to the Whigs by 30 or 40 majority and added, " you 
cannot (I am grieved to the heart to think) carry this state next 
fall. Whether any Democrat can, God only knows." 

The members of the Junta were at a loss to know what 
to do. Various courses were suggested. Finally the 
Shockoe Hill Democratic Association was called to meet 
the following day. At this meeting Ritchie drew, offered, 
and secured the adoption of resolutions, which declared 
that the immediate reannexation of Texas to the United 
States was a measure required by the best interests of the 
Union, that such a course was consistent with the soundest 
principles of international law, that the efforts then being 
made in the north by Albert Gallatin and others to prevent 
the acquisition of more slave territory would, if successful, 
place the south under the ban of the republic, that the com- 
mercial and abolitionist activities of Great Britain in Texas 
furnished strong and additional grounds why we should 
repossess ourselves of that country, that Clay's letter op- 
posing annexation was an attack upon the Institution of 



IDS 



W. H. Roane to Van Buren, April 30, 1844. Fan Buren MSS.; 
Richmond Enquirer, May 2, 1844. 
'•* April 30, 1844. Fan Buren MSS. 



Virginia and Presidential Succession 197 

negro slavery, and that the Democrats of Virginia be at 
once urged to express their opinions on the subject of Texas 
and on " the propriety of relieving their delegates to the 
Baltimore convention from their Instructions, leaving 
them to the exercise of a sound discretion, or even to in- 
struct them, if they deem it expedient to do so, to cast the 
vote of Virginia In favor of men known and pledged to be 
for annexation." "^ 

While the Democrats were openly and publicly repudiat- 
ing Van Buren by elaborate resolutions, which did not refer 
to him by name, but contained a detailed refutation of his 
letter on Texas, the following anonymous letter was writ- 
ten to him : ^^^ 

Richmond May i, 1844. 
My dear Sir, — 

You are deserted. Ritchie, Roane, Stevenson are all against 
you on the Texas question; positively , openly, and unequivocally 
against you. Arrangements are now, at this very hour, being made 
to take up another candidate, and of this be assured, if there be 
a God in Heaven. 

a faithful follower 
and friend. 

Q in the corner. 

4 o'clock P. M. 

Letters, telling why Van Buren could not carry Virginia, 
began to pour In upon Ritchie from all sides. "^ On May 
5th he sent to Mr. Van Buren a number of these letters and 
a long personal letter, from which the following interesting 
and suggestive extracts are taken : 

" I have refrained from writing you a single letter during the 
present campaign, and I deeply regret that the first one which 

"° Washington Union, April 3, 1847. 

"' Van Buren MSS. 

^"Ritchie to Van Buren, May 5, 1844. Van Buren MSS. 



198 C. H. Ambler 

I shall have to write would be one, which gives me as much pain 
to write, as any which ever came from my pen. I need not tell 
jou Mr. Van Buren the feelings which I entertain toward you. 
Trusted at all times with a kindness and liberality and a dis- 
tinction far beyond my merits, I have conceived a sentiment to- 
ward you, which partook not more of confidence in you as a 
politician, than of attachment to you as a man. I have received 
from you a hundred evidences of good feeling, which have left a 
reciprocal impression upon my heart. But I will not dwell upon 
particulars, nor will I deal in any profusion. You must know 
me well enough to believe that unnecessary. 

" The last ten days have produced a condition of political 
affairs, which I did not believe to be possible. I am compelled 
to come to the conclusion that we cannot carry Virginia for you. 
We have lost, I now believe, the joint vote in the Legislature. 
We have ten majority in the Senate, it is true, but in the House of 
Delegates, where we had a majority of 16 at the last session, 
the Whigs now have a majority of about 12. But I do not 
attribute so much importance to this Revolution as some of my 
friends — I have recovered from the temporary panic, which is so 
natural with such circumstances. 1 assure you, I do not write 
you under the influence of any feeling, which might cloud my 
judgment. But I write you under the effect of what I have 
heard from my friends and what they write me about your 
prospects in November next. Judge for yourself, sir. If I did 
not know that you were a man of honor, I would not put the 
enclosed letters in your hands. Read them, my dear Sir, but 
don't preserve their names — take no copies of them — but return 
me the originals. I will have no half-confidence with you — some 
of them are my best friends. They are all your warm friends. 
I trust them in your hands — for 1 know that you will not abuse 
the confidence I am now reposing in you. Read them, and judge 
for yourself. I am most anxious to spare your feelings, if I 
can, but I owe to you, as my friend, as the friend of our great 
principles, to let you see what others have trusted to me, that 
you may determine for yourself. 

" Whom we can get to supply your place, 1 know not, if you 
retire. You will see what my correspondents say upon that point. 
I can only tell you that Mr. Calhoun's friends solemnly disclaim 
any wish to run him — that I have solemnly protested and will 
protest against any such idea as that. I am actuated by no other 
motive under Heaven, than the desire to possess j-ou of the views 



^ 



Virginia and Presidential Succession 199 



which these letters express. It is the same opinion, which is en- 
tertained by gentlemen, as stanch republicans as any in the state, 
who are around me, who have been late and are now your 
personal and political friends." 

Without a line of comment Van Buren returned the let- 
ters sent to him by Ritchie. ^®^ Despite this cold rebuke of 
their frank and honest and patriotic conduct, his former 
friends in Virginia continued to speak kindly of him. Geo. 
C. Dromgoole, his most enthusiastic supporter, went so far 
as to publish a long letter in which he condemned abso- 
lutely and unequivocally the repudiation of Mr. Van 
Buren.^^® The friends of Calhoun issued an address in 
which they denied the alleged existence of an intrigue on 
their part to turn the tide against him by " lying down " in 
the spring elections or by allying with the " anti-Van Buren 
Clique " at Washington."" The Democratic central 
committee in an " address to the people of Virginia " 
praised him as a conscientious " statesman " and 
" patriot," ^'^^ and Ritchie pledged himself to support him 
for an election, should he be the nominee of the Democratic 
party."^ But the tide had ebbed never to return; the peo- 
ple were with their leaders. 

Meanwhile the leaders were having difficulty to agree 
upon another candidate. Ritchie would accept Calhoun 
under no conditions;"^ James Buchanan and Colonel R. 
M. Johnson had only small followings, and they were con- 
fined to isolated communities in the western counties,"* and 

^'"Van Buren MSS. 

'^""Richmond Enquirer, May lo, 1844. He did not charge or imply in 
this letter that Mr. Van Buren had been deceived. 

^'^'' Richmond Enquirer, May 10, 1844. 

"' Ibid. 

"' Ibid., May 7, 1844. 

^" Ritchie to Van Buren, May 5, 1844, Van Buren MSS. Calhoun's 
friends made no effort to revive his candidacy. 

^''* Richmond Enquirer, January 6, 1843; Ibid., October 6, 1843. 



200 C. H. Ambler 

the opinion prevailed that neither Silas Wright nor 
Thomas H. Benton would accept the nomination so long 
as Van Buren remained in the race. Thus the choice fell 
upon Lewis Cass, who already enjoyed much popularity in 
Virginia. He was favorably known in the western part 
of the state, where he had intermarried with a family 
widely and prominently known ; "^ he was popular with 
the former conservative faction of the Democratic party, 
which had opposed Van Buren's independent treasury 
scheme ;^^® and, most important of all, he was sound on 
the question of Texas. ^^'^ The vote of Virginia in the 
Baltimore convention was given to him until the " dark- 
horse," James K. Polk, dashed into camp and captured the 
banner. 

The subsequent contest between the Whigs and the 
Democrats was spirited and in doubt to the end. The 
Whigs continued to attack the " despot," the " artful wire- 
puller," and the " miniature Talleyrand," Ritchie; "^ they 
insisted that he and others of the Junta were owners of 
lands in Texas, and that they were willing to destroy the 
Union for mercenary purposes ; "® they denominated the 
resolutions of '98 " mere abstractions," "^ and insisted that 
a national bank would make money plentiful and equalize 
exchange ; ^^^ they protested against the alleged use of Brit- 
ish gold in an effort to make the United States a free-trade 
country,^^- and expressed great fear lest the success of the 
Democratic party and the consequent repeal of the tariff 



176 
177 



^'° Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, p. 237. 

Richmond Enquirer, January 13, 1844. 

Nenv York Republic, May 4, 1844; Richmond Enquirer, May 14, 21, 
1844. 

^'* Richmond Enquirer, September 10, 1844. 

'^''^ Ibid., September 6, 24, 1844. 

*'" Ibid., November 12, 1844. 

^'^Ibid. 

^^^ Richmond Enquirer, October 5, 1844. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



Virginia and Presidential Successi ® «02 347 749 fi 

act of 1842 would make It necessary for the laboring 
classes of this country to live upon " free-trade bread," **^ 
a " black rye-bread used by the laboring population of 
Germany; " they believed that Great Britain would prefer 
free trade with the United States to the ownership of a 
dozen such countries as Texas,"* and claimed that the an- 
nexation of that country would lower the price of land in 
and decrease the population of Virginia ; ^^^ they went even 
so far as to Invite John Quincy Adams to address a public 
meeting In Richmond/^" 

On the other hand, Ritchie, as spokesman for the Demo- 
crats, did not deny that he and other Virginians owned 
lands in Texas, "^ but he did insist that their Interest In the 
preservation of the Union was paramount to all other in- 
terests ; "^ he pronounced the rumors of disunion, which 
had followed the rejection by the Senate of the treaty for 
ihe annexation of Texas, to be " idle chimeras " started by 
some hasty resolutions In South Carolina, which Calhoun 
"regrets" and " reprobates ;" "** he proved the '* black 
rye-bread " argument to be a fraud by showing that rye- 
bread was a wholesome and popular diet with all classes 
In Germany,"** and held out the adoption of free trade in. 
Europe as an example which we should follow; he pro- 
nounced the proposed visit of Adams a disgrace to the 
grand Old Commonwealth,"^ and almost daily Insisted 
that Adams and Henry Clay had stolen the presidency In 



^^^ Ibid., October 22, 1844. 
^^*Ibid., October 5, 1844. 



^^"Ibid., July II, 1844. 

*" Richmond Enquirer, September 3, 1844. 
^^'' Ibid., September 6, 1844. 
"" Ibid. 

^'"' Ibid., June 18, 1844; Ibid., August 6, 9, 1844; Ibid., September 34, 
1844. 

Richmond Enquirer, October 24, 1844. 

Ibid., September 3, 1844. 



ISO 

1»1 



202 C. H. Ambler 

1825; ^^- above all things, he insisted upon the immediate 
annexation of Texas. Texas in the Union, he thought, 
would be a less fearful competitor than Texas in the Brit- 
ish Empire. In either case, it would be populated largely 
from the United States, and would raise cotton. As a part 
of the United States, she would afford a ready market for 
" worthless negroes " at " high prices." The money from 
their sales could be used to make necessary improvements 
at home, and their removal would give a place for desirable 
whites and Gemtian immigrants in those mechanical and 
commercial employments from which a surplus of slave 
labor had driven them."* 

Although the results of this contest were in doubt to 
the last the Democrats won by a popular majority of almost 
six thousand. The current of public opinion was in their 
favor, and they outgeneraled their opponents in both tac- 
tics and arguments. The slogan, " Polk and Texas," was 
popular with voters of all parties in eastern Virginia, and 
in the very last days of the campaign, Ritchie gave wide 
circulation, through the medium of the press, to the attacks 
made by the Richmond Whig in 1840, upon the alleged 
ignorance and stupidity of the " Suabian Dutch " of the 
Valley, who had caused the vote of Virginia to be cast 
against V^. H. Harrison for the presidency. By these 
tactics he turned threatened defections from the Demo- 
cratic party in the western counties into large majorities."* 

Charles Henry Ambler. 

^^"^ Ibid., October lo, 12, 15, 1844. 
'°' Richmond Enquirer, July 19, 1844. 

"* Richmond Whig, November 13, 1840; Richmond Enquirer, October 3, 
1844. 



/ 



/ 



^^ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



DD0E3H77HTA 



